Posted
by
Unknown Lameron Tuesday November 06, 2012 @01:10AM
from the anti-trust-suit-anyone? dept.

redletterdave writes "Even though Apple's App Store has also been friendly enough to offer alternative mapping applications to ameliorate customers upset with Apple's new default Maps app, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company may not be so friendly as to approve a Maps app submission from Google, which used to be responsible for the Maps experience in iOS until the iPhone 5. On Monday, sources at Google familiar with its mapping plans said the chances of Apple approving a dedicated Google Maps app on iOS 6 are 'not optimistic.' Specifically, they pointed to the lack of any mapping app in the 'Find maps for your iPhone' section of the App Store — accessible only via iPhones or iPads — that use the Google Maps APIs to call wirelessly for location, routing or point-of-interest (POI) data."

I honestly don't know HOW to complain to these companies. Their surveys and scripted responses make it impossible to talk to someone that can answer a question or respond intelligently. Exactly how they want it, I'm sure.I tried to get people up in arms about the Lightning connectors for the new iphones and the authentication needed merely to charge... Several months ago. But slashdot, nor reddit would bother to help get the word out.

Leaking this story makes sure the press will notice if Apple does delay or reject the appLeaking this story helps to explain to users that Google is not the only one deciding to keep Google Maps off iOS.Leaking this story helps users pressure Apple to provide the Google Maps appLeaking this story puts pressure on Apple and encourages customers to look at Android

It's perfectly reasonable for them to talk up in advance the fact they are developing this app and will submit soon, given the opaque review process, and Apple's blatant abuse of their control over the ecosystem in the past (banning previous google apps like latitude and google voice for example), which has led to other apps from their competitors languishing in 'review' limbo for months, or having important features yanked (like buying books in the kindle app) because Apple wants a cut of every transaction.

I agree with the reasons you list, and think this whole fiasco is Apple's fault. But there's another possible reason here, one that I think is much more likely:

Google wants Apple to stew in the mess it created by dropping Google Maps. They want to delay the (re)introduction of Google Maps for iOS for as long as they can without letting Apple's Maps app gain traction. But they don't want people blaming them for the delay. They want people blaming Apple. So they make a lot of noise about how it'll take them a long time to prepare the app, how it's likely Apple will reject it, etc.

The reason I think it's the more likely reason is because Google doesn't need to create a Google Maps app for iOS. They already have one - the one Apple yanked with iOS 6. Unless their contract with Apple stipulates they can't release it as a regular App Store app, they could've submitted it to the App Store the day after Apple announced iOS 6. If the contract had stipulated that, I think we would've heard of it by now. The anti-Apple PR from saying "We cannot release Google Maps for iOS yet because our contract with Apple prohibits it, and there's still a year left in the contract." would have been priceless.

They don't even need to delay their app to add turn-by-turn navigation. They can introduce it as-is (as it was in iOS 5). Then roll out an update once they have turn-by-turn navigation ready. So I'm pretty sure the delay in getting Google Maps in the App Store is entirely to make Apple lie in the bed it made for itself.

They already have one - the one Apple yanked with iOS 6. Unless their contract with Apple stipulates they can't release it as a regular App Store app, they could've submitted it to the App Store the day after Apple announced iOS 6.

Unfortunately not. The old maps app (iOS 5 and below) whilst using images and data from google was actually written by Apple, not Google.

Perhaps in complaining Google hopes to swing enough public opinion their way to alter the expected decision?

Either way, if there is a perception of unfairness, or a delay in the process, either could be worth discussing. Its like talking about an election before the election takes place - there are insights to be found for those who care to look.

Isn't this the problem with the whole model though? You have to make the app, invest the thousands to make it work, and only then, after you've spent the money do you get to find out whether it was a complete and total waste or not. Based entirely on a large multinational's whim.

Google is just playing a cunning strategy... By pre-calling-apple-out as evil monopolistic bastards who won't let their app in the store, there's much much more pressure on apple to approve the app in the state it's in.

I'll trade the turn-by-turn for an app that can find a restaurant I'm 100 yards from. I didn't capitalize Ruby or Tuesday, so only the other ones in town showed up... Nice job, Team Map.

While I'm at it, I still want an app that will display the other networks and the signal strength in db... Like Mac OS X can do.. built-in if you know where to look. NO, it's a HACKING TOOL. Thanks, Steve. (and Tim)

I'd settle for something that shows maps outside of China. I hate having to go into airplane mode, turning wifi back on, turning off location services, and connecting to a VPN just so I can see maps in English (on my US localized phone) and shows sat imagery outside of China.

One of the things you're not allowed to do with a monopoly, is using the power of it to gain a monopoly in a different market. Apple is stepping dangerously close to this any time they disallow an app for competing with iOS built in services/Apple apps. Especially if they didn't offer that app/service before. It's just like Microsoft's Internet Explorer bundling, except MS at least allowed you to install competing products (if not removing their own).

(And yes, I know the standard argument, that Apple doesn't have a monopoly because other touchscreen phones sell better in aggregate. But this doesn't hold because it's not clear that the touchscreen phone should be the relevant unit for monopoly. If I control the world's fish supply, I can't just claim it's not a monopoly because people eat things other than fish. A monopoly in a limited sphere is still a monopoly.)

One of the things you're not allowed to do with a monopoly, is using the power of it to gain a monopoly in a different market. Apple is stepping dangerously close to this any time they disallow an app for competing with iOS built in services/Apple apps. Especially if they didn't offer that app/service before. It's just like Microsoft's Internet Explorer bundling, except MS at least allowed you to install competing products (if not removing their own).

(And yes, I know the standard argument, that Apple doesn't have a monopoly because other touchscreen phones sell better in aggregate. But this doesn't hold because it's not clear that the touchscreen phone should be the relevant unit for monopoly. If I control the world's fish supply, I can't just claim it's not a monopoly because people eat things other than fish. A monopoly in a limited sphere is still a monopoly.)

So what is your "unit of monopoly" in this case?

Apple phones? Well, duh, Apple has a "monopoly" on those, but that's just moronic.

Smartphones? Apple does not have a monopoly here and never has. The best they can do is about 50% which is so far from a monopoly anyone looking at it seriously will laugh at you.

Mobile phones as a whole? See above, but with an even smaller percentage.

I'm not seeing what "monopoly unit" that you seem to want to select to result in *only* Apple being in a monopoly position. Maybe

Your analogy is stupid (sorry - there's no other word to describe it). Apple aren't selling "fish and there's other food to eat." Apple, using your analogy, are selling "Atlantic Salmon" and there are a) other fish to eat and b) other salmon to eat.

Or, to be clearer, Apple doesn't have a monopoly position in ANY market they operate in. The closest they've ever been to that position was the music player market with the iPod and, even there, they didn't get close to what regulators consider a monopoly positio

Apple tried to negotiate with Google to get turn-by-turn navigation, but Google wouldn't give up that data without some concessions from Apple. Google wanted more Google branding in the maps as well as the inclusion of Lattitude, Google's Foursquare-esque social network that tracks people if they opt-in.
Apple didn't want to include either of those things in its maps.

In the end, Apple walked away from the table, the Google offer remained but Apple didn't want to agree to it.

As much as Apple fan sites tried to spin it, Apple chose not to have Google's turn by turn navigation.

Yes, Apple chose to reject Google's terms for using their turn-by-turn. Is that really surprising? Why should they be expected to help their biggest competitor? It's not just the Apple fans that like to spin this story.

Well, Apple would have benefited too, you see. It's called a business deal - lots of companies do it, even if they compete in some markets. Still, it's clear that Apple felt it was worth spending millions on mapping companies and mapping development rather than give Google any more presence on their platform. Obviously the disagreement wasn't about cost.

It's interesting that while Apple may see Google as a competitor (and Samsung, Microsoft, Amazon etc etc), and may refuse to have anything to do with them outside the courtroom, Google has no problems working with Apple. Google make many iOS apps, they optimise their web services for Apple products, their employees are free to use iPhones and iMacs etc (and many do).

The comparison with Microsoft is also interesting. Apart from the infamous "look and feel" lawsuit in 1994, Apple has been far less antagonistic towards Microsoft than they are with Google, despite a number of similarities in the relationships.

You could equally ask why should Google be expected to help their biggest competitor? The answer to whichever party you ask it is because there is money and mutual benefit from doing so. Apple gets a premium map application (and presumably some kind of kickback from Google) and Google gets another channel to gather data from and monetize it. Another benefit only shown after the fact is Apple wouldn't be left with egg all over its face when it introduced its own half assed replacement.

So basically Google wanted to have tight control over the branding (look and feel?) and add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is.
I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.

As I said, as much as Apple fans try to spin it, Apple still walked away.

Apple wont get the chance to make it work in the long term, they ruined it in the short term. For Apple to get a similar dataset to Google would take the better part of a decade.

First off, Latitude would be opt-in the same as it is on Android, but it gives users the option to use the service if they want.
Secondly, I'd sooner trust Google who are open about what is being collected and who gets it than Apple, who allow thrid party developers to collect information on you without even notifiying you (also it's automatically enabled and there's no opt out). Seeing as I never opted in to Latitude on Android, I don't have to worry.

But nice try to spin it. In the end, Apple shot themselves in the foot.

So basically Google wanted to have tight control over the branding (look and feel?) and add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is.

I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.

As I said, as much as Apple fans try to spin it, Apple still walked away.

Apple wont get the chance to make it work in the long term, they ruined it in the short term. For Apple to get a similar dataset to Google would take the better part of a decade.

First off, Latitude would be opt-in the same as it is on Android, but it gives users the option to use the service if they want.

Secondly, I'd sooner trust Google who are open about what is being collected and who gets it than Apple, who allow thrid party developers to collect information on you without even notifiying you (also it's automatically enabled and there's no opt out). Seeing as I never opted in to Latitude on Android, I don't have to worry.

But nice try to spin it. In the end, Apple shot themselves in the foot.

Google is being open about the data they collect? Is this the same Google who got caught circumventing browser security to gather data on user activities? As a Safari browser user I never opted in to Google ad tracking but I got tracked anyway and so did millions of MS IE users. This is all about the ability of soulless Megacorps to track users and their habits in a geographical context right down to the error margin of the GPS system and then profiting from it. Apple would like that data to flow into their

As I said, as much as Apple fans try to spin it, Apple still walked away.

Hypothetical:Party A tries to negotiate with Party B to include B's widgetator 9000 in A's iBrick 2014.Party B says no.Did party A walk away? Clearly No.

Party A tries to negotiate with Party B to include B's widgetator 9000 in A's iBrick 2014.Party B says "yes, but only if you give us all your profits from iBrick 2014"Did party A walk away? I'd argue again, no –Party B's response amounts to "no", just dressed up to look like "yes".

So in your opinion, if Party B's response is "yes, but our terms are that everything you own becomes ours", party A is still the one that walked away? I would find it very hard to justify that position.

So basically Google wanted to have tight control over the branding (look and feel?)

They wanted to have branding so people would see that app X was pulling google data. Doesn't seem to be all that unreasonable of a request.

and add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is

Uh, no that's fanboy spin. Lattitude, IF you chose to use it, and IF you chose to opt IN (not opt-out), would track you. There are plenty of apps which track "every user's location", for example a weather application, but since that's not Google I guess tracking is OK.

I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.

Well, me too. They don't want people to use a product put out by one of their main competitors, but frankly this is starting to get into the "unfair business practices" area (at least in my opinion). But Apple isn't concerned about users being tracked- far from it; they just want to be the ones with the tracking data.

So basically Google wanted to... add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is. I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.

Actually, Google's map apps have had this "tracking" for years, and they've been very open about it. We've discussed the fact here before. This tracking is the basis of the Google traffic reports. The folks at Google have explained from the start that this feature gets its traffic info primarily from the cell phones running Google map apps, which uses the GPS data not only to show you where you are on the map, but to report to their traffic-control database where your phone is and how fast it's moving. This info is summarized, and sent to the other phones' mapping software to color the roads green, yellow or red. (And you can turn off this "tracking" by exiting the Maps program.;-)

One of their frustrations right at the start was that, although the Google Maps app was on the iPhones, for several years Apple blocked this "tracking", so iPhones were in effect leeching off the Google (Android) traffic info without contributing to it. Eventually Apple relented, and allowed the iPhone population to add to the traffic info, significantly improving the coverage and accuracy of the data.

This is a nice example of a "social good". The best traffic reporting system would obviously collect data from all moving GPS gadgets and make it available to all such gadgets. If individual vendors create "walled gardens" and only allow their gadgetry to communicate with their traffic system, then we get a flock of partial-coverage, low-quality traffic reports.

Apple has once again chosen to take this route, by splitting off from the (currently) best such system. If they had our interests at heart, they'd instead be pushing for a common traffic-reporting database shared and supported by all the vendors. Google's approach here could be described as pushing for such a shared, public database, though their holding part of the API private is an example of them trying to limit the capabilities of competitors.

Thus, Google isn't acting entirely in the public interest here. But they're a lot closer to it than Apple, who are clearly pushing for the "walled garden" approach, to the detriment of everyone except their shareholders. In contrast, Google does make their map API available to the public, no matter which gadget you're using.

If the "public" had any sense, we'd be demanding that these companies pool their traffic-reporting resources into a single publicly-accessible system. But the public (at least here in the US;-) clearly has no sense at all in this matter.

Google's withholding turn-by-turn voice navigation from the iOS version in order to give their Android platform a competitive advantage.

Since you are obviously intimately familiar with the negotiations, perhaps you could correct my misapprehension. I had heard that Apple didn't want iOS users to have Latitude access or Google branding [businessinsider.com] . Sort of like they do on all other versions of Google map I have ever seen. That would kind of suggest it was more about locking in Apple customers to Apple's own map app and friend finder service than about Google refusing to provide features.

Are Apple users really worse off not having Lattitude track them as they use the map app? I don't think so

You don't have to use Lattitude at all to use the maps, and even if you do the tracking is opt-IN so it's only gathering data if you tell it to. While I object to having Lattitude force-bundled, frankly speaking the only concern is that it's bloatware.

In around a year the two maps will be equivalent for searches and iOS users will have a more readable map

That remains to be seen, Nostradamus. So far they don't seem to be doing a very good job fulfilling your prophecy.

with less user tracking

Uh, what? You mean less user tracking by Google, there's absolutely NO reason to assume that Apple won't track you.

I have used the navigation feature quite often and never had an issue, in fact when going to my house it chooses a route that is one I have been using for years, instead of a somewhat more roundabout path Google Maps always chose.

Save your breath. Why would Apple give Google any face on this? The #1 reason they dumped Google Maps was because Apple didn't want to pay Google's for turn-by-turn voice navigation from the iOS version.

Fixed that for you.

Apple wanted access to Google's data for free. Google didn't want that, so Google asked for money and barring that asked wanted other concessions such as branding or the inclusion of more google services (such as Latitude) but Apple steadfastly refused.

As much as they tried to paint Google as the bad guy, it was Apple who refused to negotiate.

Apple tried to negotiate with Google to get turn-by-turn navigation, but Google wouldn't give up that data without some concessions from Apple. Google wanted more Google branding in the maps as well as the inclusion of Lattitude, Google's Foursquare-esque social network that tracks people if they opt-in.

Apple didn't want to include either of those things in its maps.

As much as All Things D tried to spin it, they couldn't get around the fact that Apple refused to give the concessions Google wanted and Google had every right to ask for those concessions as they spent the money developing the service.

That so-called "number 1 reason" they dumped google maps in favor of their own application is a feature that isn't even available on the iPhone 4. Their 3-d flyover view isn't available on it either.

It seems strange that they would have bothered to even make iOS6 compatible with older phones at all when what was evidently a key factor in their decision to change the OS mapping application will not work on such devices.

Well I, for one it seems, thank them for giving me a better maps app. Google _could_ have given me turn by turn navigation in their version but they chose not to. Apple's version does.

And it's excellent.

Anecdote time: my sister bought a new place in the middle of nowhere Ontario. I plunked in her address and followed the turn-by-turn that Apple's app gave me and got there without a problem. Had I been using Google's version, thanks to their neutering of the app, I wouldn't have had turn by turn navigation a

...just team up w/ AAA and use their maps? And make similar deals w/ auto associations in other countries that they care about? Rest they can try and fill up w/ OpenStreetMaps, and hope that it fills in the difference.

just because metal is more expensive than plastic, doesn't mean it is better for all purposes.what advantage does a metal housing for a phone have over a plastic one?

in my opinion, plastic is a superior material for the job due to being lighter, non-conductive(not interfering with NFC or other antennas inside the device) and not requiring an outer layer of paint - which is more susceptible to scratches, which are more obvious.

Yep, you just need to ask where cheap plastic junk is sold. Then you know it's an Android device.

Look, I'm a huge Apple fanboy on the desk/laptop. I love my MBP. I love my Air. I love my 27" Thunderbolt monitor. You can pry them from my cold, dead hands.

For my portable devices, however, I am not a fan of iOS. Android on the phone and the Nexus 7. IMO, OS X is king of desktop productivity, Android is king of mobile productivity. Android is available on some excellent devices.

(Admittedly, though, if I could only choose one ecosystem, it would be Apple. It would be very difficult to give up my Nexus 7, b

One of the first things Jobs did when he came back was stop the stupid and destructive fight with Microsoft. Now they're doing all they can to pick a fight with Google. My guess: in 10 years, when Apple is on its knees, they'll come crawling back to Google.

Ummm... that was Steve 'go nuclear on android' Jobs, I think you will find.

Cannot disagree on the rest, we are starting to see the tablet transition as we sawon the phones a couple of years ago. If Apple doesnt find a new 'wonder' product inthe next 12 months, its going to get mighty difficult for them.

Oh bullshit. Without Google Maps and Search on day one, the iPhone would have been a tiny fraction as effective a device as it was. Google Maps was the killer app, and STILL is as everyone has learned with the Apple Maps fiasco.

And Google didn't even *create* Android, they just bought a startup once it seemed obvious that mobile devices would be the dominant form of social interaction. What, was Google supposed to ignore that whole market just because *Apple* elected its CEO to their board? I'm pretty sure a CEO's responsibilities to his company trump a board member's, and if they were paying attention they should have asked Schmidt to leave a lot sooner.

The thought that Google will not be accepted just because Apple is not featuring any Google based mapping apps is rediculous. There are a number of Google based mapping apps in the app store, from a Street View app to something called Sparkling Maps [leimobile.com] which is meant to be something of a Google maps clone.

Apple does not feature every app on the App store; there are too many. But that does not mean anything in terms of what they will approve, and the myth that Apple will not allow publishing anything that "duplicates functionality" is long dead at this point.

This whole story is nothing more than Apple Hater bait, and I can see by the first few replies the trolls are hungrily feasting upon it.

...and the myth that Apple will not allow publishing anything that "duplicates functionality" is long dead at this point.

A myth? Are you kidding me? The last time Apple removed existing applications, because it "duplicated" (new) iPhone functionality, was just last week. And I'm talking about removing existing applications, not just banning new applications. Granted, those apps were for adding emoji icons, it's probably no big loss to anyone, but it at least proves that this clause in their developer EULA hasn't gone away.

Besides, no one is saying that Apple "will not allow publishing anything that 'duplicates functionality'". That's a straw man argument. From the very beginning, Apple hasn't been consistent in enforcing its rules anyway. For instance, it allowed some apps that duplicated functionality, while it rejected other applications that duplicated that same functionality.

The thing is. You don't really know. And Apple won't tell you of course. So you have to invest all this money and manpower in building your app for the iPhone platform and take the risk that the person reviewing your app is in a good mood that day, and/or that Apple won't go back on its decision six months from now (when they feel their mapping application has finally passed QA).

How in the hell does Google Voice compete with Siri? Google Voice is a call management application with SMS functionality. The only possible overlap is the voicemail transcription feature, which isn't capable of interpreting voice in realtime and doesn't perform any kind of query. It was actually rejected for a while, though I think Apple eventually approved it.

I have used Apple and Windows products for over 20 years. I liked my Apple Macbook and use iPads in one of my businesses. We deliver using the iPad maps app and maintained a history using the previous app.

Imagine losing all that data? That's what Apple did to me with this unannounced change. They put their own selfish agenda above their customers. They could have easily brought back the old app.

Bastards. I'm tired of both Apple and Windows forcing me to use devices and applications only the way they decide I should use them.

Translation:
I didn't do my due diligence by verifying that the upgrade would allow me to run my business in the way that I've been running it.

Huh. I typically expect new versions of programs to add functionality, not arbitrarily remove it. Or is it considered common practice now before updating to go over a checklist of every feature of every app you use, to make sure it hasn't disappeared?

Do you check to make sure each update to the iPhone still lets you make calls?

Wouldn't they then be in the position of being somewhat obligated to, for similar reasons, also discontinue (at least for iOS6 and later) any of the other mapping and navigations programs that are available on the app store?

They can choose what to put on their store with no penalty from any "antitrust" position. In the same way that Walmart can choose not to sell Bob's Apple Pies if it wants to, even though it sells apple pies from other manufacturers.

If you don't like that, there are other stores that will happily sell you Bob's Apple Pies.

So the International Business Times quotes the Guardian, who cites "sources at Google familiar with its mapping plans" - in other words, nobody at all. As others have pointed out, there are many Google-API based applications on the App Store; some of them are even in the "featured" category in certain stores, such as the Japanese App Store. Whoever they're quoting doesn't know much, and their knowledge appears to be limited to whatever country they happen to be in. This doesn't amount to more than water-cooler gossip and conspiracy theory. Nothing to see here.

Of course they'll approve it. It's a highly popular app, and when Apple turned down the Google Voice app, the FTC investigated them and Apple had to immediately reverse itself.

The lack of Google Maps apps in the App Store is probably because of TOS issues. Third Party iOS apps can't use google maps for turn by turn directions according to Google's restrictions to developers, so that excludes Google's APIs

I drank it for about 2 years, loved my iphone so much. My first smartphone - I was completely blown away by the thing.Infact, I became so addicted to their products and so eager for new shit, I actually ruined a part of a nice long holiday in London in 2010 because I was so busy reading iphone 4 news, hoping for it's release while I was away, ordering the phone in the store over there - the whole lot. I was so desperate for the next 'iproduct' that I wasn't spending time enjoying myself on my holiday. Totally my own fault of course but part of dumb consumerism, brand loyalty, good marketing.(Yes, I did end up buying it outright in the UK)

Over time though, I got sick of so many things I couldn't do. I hated that I needed to jailbreak just for SBSettings, which is frankly - fucking priceless (or was 18 months ago when I last used it) that one thing alone and the fact Apple hadn't copied SBSettings had me concerned. How can they NOT impliment this logical, awesome stuff?They are devestatingly stubborn.

Someone showed me, I think a 2.2 build of Android and the pull down menu and the power bar widget. I was blown away. He was an Android nerd and lent me an Android phone for a few weeks. Almost all the shit which was pissing me off with an iphone was solved. I think I'd owned my iphone 4 for about 4 months at this point and then it went in a drawer for 7 months before I sold it - my journey had begun.Would never EVER switch back now - just couldn't consider it

Won't deny one thing though - the hardware support from Apple, no one else comes close, not even remotely - which is sad. That whole "oh golly sir, it has a scratch and re-booted once on you?! Here have a new phone!" - that's good. That bought my loyalty for quite a while, won't deny that.I hear Samsung and Asus are really bad to return things to - and I've personallyreturned to Nokia (or tried to) I'll never purchase a Nokia product again.

Long story short though, this stubborn shit from Apple? surprising? Not at all, not even slightly.

The problem that I have with this article is that Google seems to studiously avoid the question "Have you actually written and submitted the app?" If they haven't it seems rather like politicking on Google's behalf. This isn't the world's most complex app - just submit it and **then** complain if it is rejected.

If you think it's going to be rejected then, and this is only an idea, design it so that it follows Apple's clearly published rules for Appstore apps - rules that EVERY other app publisher follows - and that should solve the problem.

I know that's not as fun as intentionally designing your app to break some rules so you know it'll be rejected resulting in a whole PR shitstorm, which is what you're really after, but other app publishers seem to be able to manage to get their apps published so I imagine Google

The current iOS map app is terrible. No searching for businesses (well, no businesses listed), no street view, etc. I used google maps a lot, and the current app offers nothing new while taking giant leaps backward. And no, maps.google.com via mobile safari doesn't work well enough (because mobile safari has sucked hard since the first iPhone).

well, it is an app market. if you cut off competition just because your product isn't good enough, it smacks of childish spite, mostly. although most of what transpires between apple and the rest of the world recently has been more than a little stupid.

It is anti-customer. Since most of us have diverging usage patterns, it is very hard to argue that there is one app that fits all bills, especially on a piece of hardware that goes around with you, as you can potentially find new usage patterns every hour. Usually a set of two or three apps is a better match, and sometimes even that isn't enough.

Putting brakes on the choice of apps, and the ability of user to mix and match for best results just because you can't check up if all of the apps fit your busine

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how this isn't exactly like the anti-trust situation where Microsoft bundled their own browser with Windows. Except that Microsoft didn't actually restrict the software you could install, only the default/bundled stuff.

Let me tell you how this isn't exactly like the anti-trust situation with Microsoft:Microsoft Windows had and has a (near) monopoly on the desktop OS market.Apple does not have a monopoly on the smartphone or tablet market. They are one of the biggest players, but they do have real competition.

You can only be found guily to abuse your monopoly if you have a monopoly.

(It hurts to write this, as I'm as anti-Apple as they come, but I don't like critisizing Apple on false grounds. I leave that to the fanbois.)

"Certain antitrust violations, conventionally described as 'per se' offenses, do not require proof of market or monopoly power. [FN7] Indeed, the label 'per se' seems to point to the irrelevance of market power. An essential characteristic of a 'per se' offense, however, seems to be that it constitutes behavior that, if engaged in by a firm with market power, would be egregiously anticompetitive. [FN8] Market power is treated as irrelevant only because 'per se' offenses involve behavior that

A lot of slashdot people seem to leave their brains at the door when it comes to Apple. Just really irrational hatred going on.

Touche. s/hated/fanboism/

Google was already dumbing down their Map app on the iPhone before Apple got into the mapping business. They wanted to charge for "turn by turn" -- which makes business sense for Google. However -- it's a big feature for people with smart phones, so Apple had to do something.

Google was dumbing down? Just be happy that Google even allowed Apple to use any of their Maps data, let alone Navigation data. Google got nothing in return for the data. No ads, no ad revenue, no fresh data, nothing, zilch. And then Apple wanted turn-by-turn navigation. Google wanted more prominent display of their name, and inclusion of Google Latitude. Apple refused. Google then offered it for a fee. Apple refused and went crying to their fanbois.

Just from a business standpoint, why would Apple let someone do the "Microsoft thing" to them again? MS had a sub-par Office app experience on the Mac and Apple had to beg for that.

Apple probably will approve the Google App -- but only after they've established their own a bit more. Having users become dependent on an app that is a strategic trojan horse for the competitor is never a smart move. They've spent billions acquiring and developing their own mapping solution and it's REALLY UNLIKELY they'll even break even on that investment.

It is not good business to degrade your main cash cow by showing down an inferior experience on your users, either. But what do I know, I am just an irrational slashdotter.

If any competitor makes the major app and features on your platform -- you become vulnerable.

I think a lot of these comments about Apple -- on so many topics, ignore normal business practices. It's as if they invented Lawsuits, using Chinese manufacturing plants, and defensive policies towards major competitors. Grow up Slashdot, and stop talking like the ignoramuses you like to make fun of.

You know what I think is funny, is that before Apple was as big as it is now (pre-2004'ish?) slashdot had a mostly pro-Apple slant, especially given the *nix at the heart of OS X. I always maintained my position that if Apple had the same leverage that Microsoft has, they would be much worse.

I really like Google maps, and I own an iPhone, but if Google chose to do that, it wouldn't inspire me to buy Android. I would see such a choice by Google to be extremely petty.

Not that Apple rejecting Google likely wouldn't also be petty, but if Google is smart about this, they'd be wiser to let Apple take fall for being so. if Google tries to play by the same rules as anybody else and Apple just doesn't let them in, then only one of two things must happen:

You're right to highlight this is nothing but a free PR announcement by Google. They got another round reminding everyone that Apple maps sucks, and they are the good guys, in front of our faces. All they're doing here is making sure they don't get any of the blame for screwing the IOS maps up, that it all stays firmly on top of Apple.

The only interesting part is how Google is laying the groundwork for an excuse if they decide to stop porting to IOS altogether. And given the multiple lawsuits between the